Search - considered

Azam was therefore considered inadmissible under subparagraph 36(1)(c) of the IRPA. ... Conclusion [25]   Due to all of the above, the decision before the Court is considered reasonable under the circumstances; and, therefore, the judicial review is dismissed. ...

Therefore, the RPD found that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA. [9]   The RPD considered the evidence but found that the discrimination the Applicants may have experienced from 1996 to 2011 did not amount to persecution. ... Exhibit 4, Item 13.5, Immigration and Refugee Board, Response to Information Request HRV104109.E (February 5, 2013): “Croatia: Situation and treatment of persons of mixed ethnicity, people in mixed marriages and ethnic Croatians from other areas of former Yugoslavia; availability of state protection” [Emphasis Added] This document further describes how individuals in mixed marriages are viewed negatively in Croatian society, and experience “mistreatment and discrimination”. [25]   The Respondent pointed out that the RPD member specifically considered these passages and was advised that the Board’s Research Directorate indicated that they were unable to corroborate information provided in any of the reference material accompanying the statement. ...

This finding is not challenged on this application for judicial review. [16]   With regard to the identity documents considered by the RPD, the applicants submitted to the RAD that the RPD had erred by failing to consider them in the context of the totality of the evidence and had breached the principles of natural justice in its assessment of them.   ... According to the applicants, this failure to engage in an independent assessment of the documentary evidence of identity that was presented at the RPD leaves the RAD’s decision lacking in transparency, intelligibility and justification. [20]   Considered in isolation, I agree with the applicants that the RAD’s decision is flawed in this respect.   ...

(The written reasons for the decision are dated June 22, 2018, but the applicant’s lawyer did not receive them until June 28, 2018.) [19]   In his reasons, the coordinating member explained that he considered that the determinative issue was counsel’s unavailability.   ... The loss of the opportunity to have his refugee claim determined on its merits is not an acceptable outcome on the facts of this case, particularly when those facts are considered against the backdrop of the objectives of the IRPA with respect to refugees (see IRPA, s 3(2); see also Huseen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 845 at para 16).   ...

The RPD therefore rejected the applicant’s allegation that he would be considered to be “an enemy” of the state. ... However, it found that this violence was not politically motivated. [16]   Fourth, the RPD is presumed to have considered all of the evidence. ...

The OIC therefore considered the complaint to be well-founded and resolved. ... Counsel for the Attorney General did not request an opportunity to make oral representations ex parte, as contemplated by s 52(3) of the ATIA, but indicated the dates of their availability if the Court considered an ex parte hearing to be necessary. ...

President Rahman is considered by many to be the Father of the Bangladeshi nation. [3]   In 2002, Mr Chowdhury and his wife were found to be excluded from refugee protection for having committed a serious non-political crime. ... Therefore, I have not considered it. IV.   Issue Three – Is this matter justiciable? ...

The next sentence, omitted by the Officer, shows that the Applicants would be considered apostates: The constitution and the law accord primacy to sharia, however, which prohibits Muslims from converting to another religion. Under sharia, converts from Islam are still considered Muslims but regarded as apostates. [24]   The Officer does not examine the risk of being an apostate, but that risk was specifically put before the Officer. ...

The RPD considered the Applicant’s evidence that he would have difficulty getting a job because he is Muslim but found insufficient evidence that he would not be able to do so. ... In my assessment, both the material from the UNHCR Handbook cited by the RPD, and its subsequent reasoning in arriving at its determination, demonstrate an understanding of the required analysis. [23]   In conclusion, having considered the Applicant’s arguments, I find no reviewable error in the RPD’s analysis of the availability of a viable IFA, including the required assessment of whether that the Applicant would experience discrimination rising to the level of persecution. ...

The “clean hands” maxim is best understood as a very general catch-all phrase encompassing many discretionary factors better considered in more precise terms.   ... “John Norris” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5507-19   STYLE OF CAUSE: FUNDU NSUNGANI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ET AL   INFORMAL MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO ORDER AND REASONS: NORRIS J.   ...